Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.

But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.

The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.

Ok lets say you have a normal AM list at 1500pts . Your opponet opened up with psychic powers/destroy unit with shoting and one or two cards that give him VP for home objectives. You have the melee , psyker and get his objective cards . What do you do now , other then discard one , knowing next turn he will have 3 new cards to play.

Makumba wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:
I think the easiest way to look at is when you're building a list, laying down objectives, and deploying you're planning on how to capture objectives and deny them.

But once cards start getting drawn it changes. Instead of going after all objectives you're only concerned with a few, or some enemy unit is an even bigger target, or you have this odd desire to destroy buildings that don't exist.

The game starts giving you random goals to achieve that sometimes don't make any sense or are just way too one sided. A GK drawing the psychic card is going to benefit way more than the Necron player drawing it.

Ok lets say you have a normal AM list at 1500pts . Your opponet opened up with psychic powers/destroy unit with shoting and one or two cards that give him VP for home objectives. You have the melee , psyker and get his objective cards . What do you do now , other then discard one , knowing next turn he will have 3 new cards to play.

Not much really to do other than hope that cycling a single card will help you out. This is the problem I have with the game. It replaces the strategy with a random deck/table.

It's easy enough to house rule that you cycle impossible cards, but it's even easier for GW to think "Some armies won't have psykers... lets give them a way to help with the random deck" and just write a rule to remove cards that won't have an affect or just make the game turn by turn objective capturing.

 BoardroomHero wrote:
To use the raid as our central example:

If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.

The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)

That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.

Ah-hah... this pretty much confirms what I already know about many (not all) so-called "competitive" players... if you cannot plan for it at the list-building/copying phase, it's broken.

So excuse my lack of understanding with regards to "military principles" - but what do the military books say regarding 40k turns? ...so it's "strategy" if we roll for the objectives (randomly) at the beginning of turn 1, but NOT strategy if we maybe/choose/get-opportunity to roll for another objective on turn 2?

Even now in the distant past (in relation to 40K) despite my lack of military understanding - I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?

 Gunzhard wrote:
I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?

Short answer is yes.
While we do have updates to information very fast, you can't expect every troop on the ground to get instantaneous updates about every issue on the field. Say for example I deploy with the intent of rushing forward to capture objectives then draw my initial cards. I get the one for shooting down aircraft/FMC , a home objective, and a challenge. Now every troop in my army now changes their entire plan to advance slower and more carefully since they have more time, keep on the look out for any enemy aircraft, and someone has to punch an enemy officer in the face. It made more sense in 6th where you were trying to capture/deny any objective you could and your army kept focus on this until the end. Turn by turn objectives means that everyone understands they have no logistical data aside from a few blurbs and are actively checking their tweets in between reloading to see if orders completely change what they're doing.
Imagine each objective was worth 1 point for each turn you had it.
There is strategy in deploying troops and planning to take objectives while denying others, while your points build up. The means you accomplish this will change with your opponent's actions, but you still control the overall goal for your army.
With random objectives you can try to spread yourself thin, or just hop on whatever cards you get. The strategy is almost non-existent since you have no idea where you will go next turn, how you will get it, and so on for each turn after.

Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 BoardroomHero wrote:
To use the raid as our central example:

If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.

The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)

That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.

Ah-hah... this pretty much confirms what I already know about many (not all) so-called "competitive" players... if you cannot plan for it at the list-building/copying phase, it's broken.

So excuse my lack of understanding with regards to "military principles" - but what do the military books say regarding 40k turns? ...so it's "strategy" if we roll for the objectives (randomly) at the beginning of turn 1, but NOT strategy if we maybe/choose/get-opportunity to roll for another objective on turn 2?

Even now in the distant past (in relation to 40K) despite my lack of military understanding - I know that we can get rapid intel, highly technical surveillance, advanced communications and rapid re-deployment to new target priorities... is this wrong?

I'm not sure that anyone used the term 'broken,' but I certainly didn't. All I said was that it reduced elements of strategy- indeed, composition of forces is a huge element of strategy.

This is not a binary strategy/not strategy thing, either. This is a /less/ strategy thing, or a /more/ strategy thing. This is a question of how important your /planning/ was. The more you know about your objectives the earlier in the game, the more strategy is available. The less information you have the later in the game, the /less/ important many strategic concerns are. So yeah, there's less strategy when you add another objective on turn 2 than there would be if you only had them on turn one, and less strategy rolling the objective on turn 1 than if you knew ahead of the game, etc etc.

That's not wrong, but it's all relative. 'Rapid' now might mean more along the lines of hours, as opposed to days/weeks. Even so, I'm trying to figure out an instance where that kind of thing would influence strategy, as opposed to tactics. After all, what you are suggesting is that, in the middle of battle, some new intel suggests that the central objective that you're fighting over is suddenly not the only central objective, and that there's something new. That's an incredible failure of previous intel. There are a few examples I can imagine where there might be a failure of that magnitude (raiding a small cult, and then finding out mid-stride that there's some important MacGuffin that needs to be secured), but that would be very rare.

Beyond even that, what are the chances that this new objective is even in the area that you're fighting? Given the universe, it's far more likely that it's somewhere else entirely. And things like target priorities tend to be in the realm of /tactics/ not strategy. The overall objective might be 'kill all the mans,' in which case target priority is simply a tactical concern. A strategic example of target priority changing would be doing the Osama raid then finding Mecha-Hitler or something. And again, that requires a previous, incredible, intel failure.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?

It's funny because so many of the casual players I know can actually think, and react, and play the game even when something "unfair" happens like a poor card draw, or bad dice roll. Yet too many (not all) of the so-called "competitive" players think just building/copying the most top-tier army list will yield them a win - which is "less strategy"?

BoardroomHero wrote:A strategic example of target priority changing would be doing the Osama raid then finding Mecha-Hitler or something. And again, that requires a previous, incredible, intel failure.

This made me chuckle... but you have to admit - in the 40K universe, this is actually something that might very likely happen.

 Gunzhard wrote:

BoardroomHero wrote:A strategic example of target priority changing would be doing the Osama raid then finding Mecha-Hitler or something. And again, that requires a previous, incredible, intel failure.

This made me chuckle... but you have to admit - in the 40K universe, this is actually something that might very likely happen.

Oh yeah- that's why I gave the cult-MacGuffin example above. I still think it'd probably be pretty rare though, and it does reduce some strategic consideration.

I'm not arguing that this kinda' thing is /bad/ or /good/, I'm just saying that it doesn't represent that kinda' things that happen IRL all that often, and even in the 40k universe I'd expect it to be rare. Further, I'm arguing that it does decrease the importance of some strategic elements.

Of course, then you don't get surprise Mecha-Hitler, so it's a give and take. (I think if each side had to choose the 'surprise' objectives well in advance, and then they were only revealed at certain points, it'd be a fair bit better, but that's neither here nor there).

 Gunzhard wrote:

It's funny because so many of the casual players I know can actually think, and react, and play the game even when something "unfair" happens like a poor card draw, or bad dice roll. Yet too many (not all) of the so-called "competitive" players think just building/copying the most top-tier army list will yield them a win - which is "less strategy"?

I don't think ANY competitive player plans on just winning with their list. I know they try to make their list work the best way they know how before the game starts, so they can handle most challenges they face and can handle a random roll or enemy action just fine. Competitive players want a game to play WITH another player. This is a game that you have to actively play against like it was another enemy.

To answer your loaded question, the answer is the competitive player is the more strategic. The competitive player has his list and knows what he's planning to do with it and trying to do as much as he can within that plan until the end game. The casual player is playing turn by turn, with no clear goal in mind. What objective do I care about the most? I don't know, because I haven't drawn a card for it.

It's like having a turf war, except nobody knows which turf they want and they keep changing their minds. This is two armies showing up, not knowing what they're fighting about, and making up a reason every so often for the sake of fighting.

 BoardroomHero wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
objectives that matter during the battle make more sense then figuring out objectives at the end of the battle to make up most of the game.

I agree. And when I imagine the game and the random objectives I think of the changing dynamics of any battle and how things don't go as planned for whatever reason. Like when the SEALS killed bin laden, one of the helicopters crashed because the temperature was a little warmer than they expected. A bit of misfortune, a little bit random, and you have this unexpected situation you have to deal with. It changed some aspects of the raid.

Ive really enjoyed the maelstorm missions, and I like being able to ask my opponent before the game "hey, you want to do the mission cards?" And then you both decide to do those or the eternal war missions.

But the main goal of the raid was still the same. Maelstrom missions cancel out any kind of strategy and only leaves tactics.

So based on your war knowledge, "strategy" may only exist in 5+ turns, but not a single turn? ...keep in mind you can HOLD an objective card for as many turns as you think might be helpful.

No, based on the English language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactic_%28method%29
Strategy is an overall plan for an operation, battle war, whatever. Tactics are the immediate things you do to get those goals. For example, the Bin Ladden Raid. The strategy was to get into the compound via helicopter, fight their way to the top, going as quickly and efficiently as possible, where they suspected he was, and capture and kill him. The tactics would be, tossing in flash bangs, waiting till it goes off, then rushing in, each man taking a section of the room and stopping all threats.

What I'm saying is that for a table top strategy game, the maelstrom missions don't allow strategy and rely only on by the moment tactics.

So then "5+ 40K turns" is military jargon I just don't understand? ...why does your story/narrative/"operation" have to end once this single game (5+ turns) is concluded? ...funny, you listed several 'goals' as part of your overall "strategy".

I'm beginning to think you don't really understand how the cards work, or certainly haven't experienced them first hand. Most turns, even when you are doing well, you are not generating "3 random objectives", but you can always discard one bad/unhelpful card. If I have a big payout card that I can reach/attain in 3 turns (or longer) I'll hold on to it. Some times it's more 'strategic' to wait and get a possible bigger payout then achieving a quick goal while maybe also sacrificing other possible choices.

To use the raid as our central example:

If the raid had occurred using maelstrom missions, then halfway through the raid they would have had to destroy some random building they didn't even know existed previously, then near the end they would have had to kill some second person on the other side of the city, who they also didn't know about.

The reason why people are arguing that this is a hinderance to strategy is because you can't plan for it. A large part of strategy is in the planning: having a disposition of forces such that they can achieve goals X, Y, and Z efficiently. It is very rare for the goals of a mission to dramatically change in the midst of the mission itself- there is almost never some major new objective outlined, one that /should/ have been known in advance (see examples above.)

That it is 40k or not 40k doesn't really matter for this. There's nothing specific to the 40k universe that would make those basic military principles change.

Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

It's funny because so many of the casual players I know can actually think, and react, and play the game even when something "unfair" happens like a poor card draw, or bad dice roll. Yet too many (not all) of the so-called "competitive" players think just building/copying the most top-tier army list will yield them a win - which is "less strategy"?

I don't think ANY competitive player plans on just winning with their list. I know they try to make their list work the best way they know how before the game starts, so they can handle most challenges they face and can handle a random roll or enemy action just fine. Competitive players want a game to play WITH another player. This is a game that you have to actively play against like it was another enemy.

To answer your loaded question, the answer is the competitive player is the more strategic. The competitive player has his list and knows what he's planning to do with it and trying to do as much as he can within that plan until the end game. The casual player is playing turn by turn, with no clear goal in mind. What objective do I care about the most? I don't know, because I haven't drawn a card for it.

It's like having a turf war, except nobody knows which turf they want and they keep changing their minds. This is two armies showing up, not knowing what they're fighting about, and making up a reason every so often for the sake of fighting.

Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic... hmm well that just blows my mind dude. Here is where we meet that double-edged sword with 'realism'... so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?

 Gunzhard wrote:

Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.

Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.

so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?

It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.

It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.

Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.

so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?

It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.

It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.

Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.

The objectives don't just keep randomly changing. You don't roll 3 new cards/objectives each turn. You ACHIEVE objectives, which will give you a new card (regardless of how many turns it took you to achieve) and you can turn in 1 card that is not helpful to you each turn.

I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.

So in real life battle - after you achieve an objective, uhh like what happens - the battle is over and people shake hands? ...or do you move onto another objective (which is exactly how the cards work btw)?

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.

Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.

so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?

It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.

It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.

Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.

The objectives don't just keep randomly changing. You don't roll 3 new cards/objectives each turn. You ACHIEVE objectives, which will give you a new card (regardless of how many turns it took you to achieve) and you can turn in 1 card that is not helpful to you each turn.

I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.

So in real life battle - after you achieve an objective, uhh like what happens - the battle is over and people shake hands? ...or do you move onto another objective (which is exactly how the cards work btw)?

The cards tell you what to do after the battle?

thraxdown wrote:

Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.

But those are all things that you should know about in advance. Part of your strategy is saying things like 'I am using helicopters, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Is is possible that one will go down, and we will do X, Y, and Z if it does. We have supporting elements Q and R available if an extraction is required, and they'll be here and here.

In the 'random mission' system, you don't know what these sorts of variables are until you've already committed, and even /then/ they're changing after. It's incredibly rare for something completely random/unforseeable to occur. 'Helicopter goes down' is not one of those things. Hell, 'helicopter goes down' isn't even a strategic change, the major objectives are still exactly the same, it's just the method by which they will be accomplished changes.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

I don't think ANY competitive player plans on just winning with their list. I know they try to make their list work the best way they know how before the game starts, so they can handle most challenges they face and can handle a random roll or enemy action just fine. Competitive players want a game to play WITH another player. This is a game that you have to actively play against like it was another enemy.

To answer your loaded question, the answer is the competitive player is the more strategic. The competitive player has his list and knows what he's planning to do with it and trying to do as much as he can within that plan until the end game. The casual player is playing turn by turn, with no clear goal in mind. What objective do I care about the most? I don't know, because I haven't drawn a card for it.

It's like having a turf war, except nobody knows which turf they want and they keep changing their minds. This is two armies showing up, not knowing what they're fighting about, and making up a reason every so often for the sake of fighting.

Competitive players are definitely in it for the strategic challenge. It's why they all take Blood Angels and Sisters armies, so they can show off their tactical genius and not be accused of running a cheese list. Oh, wait.

 Savageconvoy wrote:
Oh god, I just realized something. Is this why so many casual players love this? Because it's less and less strategy and more and more like shoots and ladders?

Nah, we love it because it's fun, which we can have without needing to face stomp our opponent, or even have while losing.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Yes the player that requires everything to be 'perfectly accounted for' prior to the battle is more strategic.

Oh wow it's almost like I NEVER SAID THAT
I said that they make a list they know how to work with and want to play against an enemy working against their list and their plan. Having a clearly defined mission(s) works towards this. Having two players not know what their actual plan is until randomly deciding which objectives are important to who is not strategy.

so it's totally unrealistic/un-strategic that we might know/receive intel on our enemy on various 'game turns' - but it's totally realistic that we know everything about our opponent prior to the battle? ...and it's totally realistic that nothing unexpected happens, nothing changes during our initial plan?

It's realistic to change the movement of troops and the front lines to take a less defended position or fight in a more suitable terrain.
It's realistic if you have to storm a castle and change your plan of entry and exit based on guard locations and fortifications/locks.
It's realistic that if your opponent has ambush units pop out and shoot into your squad that you put focus to minimize their threat.

It's unrealistic to tell every squad as they assaulting Normandy beach on D-Day that they suddenly have to keep marching around because locations change importance ever 15 minutes. It's unrealistic to pass on the word to destroy enemy buildings and aircraft when intel says there are none and the skies are clear.

Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.

The objectives don't just keep randomly changing. You don't roll 3 new cards/objectives each turn. You ACHIEVE objectives, which will give you a new card (regardless of how many turns it took you to achieve) and you can turn in 1 card that is not helpful to you each turn.

I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.

So in real life battle - after you achieve an objective, uhh like what happens - the battle is over and people shake hands? ...or do you move onto another objective (which is exactly how the cards work btw)?

The cards tell you what to do after the battle?

Yeah MWHistorian - I'm pretty sure nobody ever said that. ...that's weird.

 BoardroomHero wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.

But those are all things that you should know about in advance. Part of your strategy is saying things like 'I am using helicopters, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Is is possible that one will go down, and we will do X, Y, and Z if it does. We have supporting elements Q and R available if an extraction is required, and they'll be here and here.

In the 'random mission' system, you don't know what these sorts of variables are until you've already committed, and even /then/ they're changing after. It's incredibly rare for something completely random/unforseeable to occur. 'Helicopter goes down' is not one of those things. Hell, 'helicopter goes down' isn't even a strategic change, the major objectives are still exactly the same, it's just the method by which they will be accomplished changes.

But it's similar in the game in that you prepare for different scenarios. There's a good chance you'll have to get an objective in the enemy's deployment zone, or you'll have to down a flyer or kill an enemy character, why is it not strategy to take all of this into account when list building, deploying and trying to obtain the objectives?

 Gunzhard wrote:


Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.

You draw cards at the beginning of the first turn and after scoring at the end of the turn you discard. You're allowed to discard a single card at the end as well and then draw new ones based on how many objectives you control, a maximum hand size, or a preset number. Not hard to understand the mechanics, but it doesn't make sense regardless.

The objectives don't just keep randomly changing.

You capture one objective, set the card down and then draw another one telling you to now focus on that objective. You don't know what objective it will be, or if it is an objective. That's changing your plan randomly on how to place your army and what direction to focus on. You are not making the decision to go after objectives that are weakly defended or offer a tactical advantage. You are going after objectives because a card tells you to. This is ultimately how they work. Since you can't actively hold/deny 6 objectives each turn you need cards to tell you which ones are important at that specific time. It's not a strategic plan, it's a random plan.

I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.

You must have misunderstood me. During a 6th edition game, you knew what the goal was at the beginning of the mission and each unit acts independently to carry out the overall plan. Now you don't know what the overall plan is until you draw each card. You send troops into battle and then tell each squad what is important in that specific moment.
Say you have to press hard to get Objective 2 for a single turn. After that turn you pull back that unit and have them rush to another objective because it's randomly decided this. Your entire army, down to each squad, is aware of these completely random changes in the overall battle plan.

thraxdown wrote:

 BoardroomHero wrote:

thraxdown wrote:

Well I assume the random objectives are just there to represent a change on the battlefield. Helicopter goes down and half your team needs to find a different ride out of the battle. To represent this the game says "capture objective 2". Your goal is to win the game, the objectives just represent things you would need to accomplish in order to do that.

But those are all things that you should know about in advance. Part of your strategy is saying things like 'I am using helicopters, for reasons X, Y, and Z. Is is possible that one will go down, and we will do X, Y, and Z if it does. We have supporting elements Q and R available if an extraction is required, and they'll be here and here.

In the 'random mission' system, you don't know what these sorts of variables are until you've already committed, and even /then/ they're changing after. It's incredibly rare for something completely random/unforseeable to occur. 'Helicopter goes down' is not one of those things. Hell, 'helicopter goes down' isn't even a strategic change, the major objectives are still exactly the same, it's just the method by which they will be accomplished changes.

But it's similar in the game in that you prepare for different scenarios. There's a good chance you'll have to get an objective in the enemy's deployment zone, or you'll have to down a flyer or kill an enemy character, why is it not strategy to take all of this into account when list building, deploying and trying to obtain the objectives?

Taking it all into account is a strategic, that's true. However, because of how random they are, it's difficult to prepare for any of them with any consistency. If there were fewer, or they were better defined, or you knew about them further in advance, sure.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:


Oh, Ok. I think it's clear however that you don't understand how the cards work.

You draw cards at the beginning of the first turn and after scoring at the end of the turn you discard. You're allowed to discard a single card at the end as well and then draw new ones based on how many objectives you control, a maximum hand size, or a preset number. Not hard to understand the mechanics, but it doesn't make sense regardless.

The objectives don't just keep randomly changing.

You capture one objective, set the card down and then draw another one telling you to now focus on that objective. You don't know what objective it will be, or if it is an objective. That's changing your plan randomly on how to place your army and what direction to focus on. You are not making the decision to go after objectives that are weakly defended or offer a tactical advantage. You are going after objectives because a card tells you to. This is ultimately how they work. Since you can't actively hold/deny 6 objectives each turn you need cards to tell you which ones are important at that specific time. It's not a strategic plan, it's a random plan.

I've never seen anyone send "every squad" to an objective but apparently you know more about 'strategy' than me.

You must have misunderstood me. During a 6th edition game, you knew what the goal was at the beginning of the mission and each unit acts independently to carry out the overall plan. Now you don't know what the overall plan is until you draw each card. You send troops into battle and then tell each squad what is important in that specific moment.
Say you have to press hard to get Objective 2 for a single turn. After that turn you pull back that unit and have them rush to another objective because it's randomly decided this. Your entire army, down to each squad, is aware of these completely random changes in the overall battle plan.

Here is what you are missing, - you get to decide.

To quote your earlier post, you are still "play(ing) WITH another player". You have to decide - do I go for (achieve) this objective, do I hold onto this objective for later (which means - it's not changing btw), or do I instead focus on my opponent - by killing his key units, killing his warlord, denying him objectives etc...

Even the fastest (and luckiest) army in 40K will not be changing all of it's objectives every turn, and nobody has witnessed this happen yet either.

So again I ask - if you have just one objective to be achieved over 5+ game turns - what happens when you achieve it? (is that strategic or realistic?) To be fair, it could be depending on your narrative, but likely once you achieve an objective, you move on to the next one. Why does it make you a tactical wizard to plan once for that objective over 5+ turns, but not on several turns?

To throw something into the discussion, at least one of the missions is poorly made (imo). Good idea, but poorly executed.
Mission 3, cloak and shadows or something like that. You hide your mission cards from your opponent.
Problem #1: There is a little to much trust factor here. (this is only if you roll the powers) Sense your opponent cant see what you roll, you (or your opponent) could not do what the dice actually rolled, and do a mission that they can easily achieve.
Problem #2: Even if you and your opponent keep it fair, it is SUPER easy to score your objective cards. Sense you dont know what your opponents cards were, you have no way of trying to counter it. I just did a game with this, and every card we got (that wasnt impossible) Was scored. Why? Because I coudnt counter my opponents cards and he coudnt counter mine.

Having the cards, which I realize are out of stock, could alleviate your Problem#1... just draw from a shuffled deck.

Problem#2 is a different kind of game, and going back to some earlier examples in this thread - your opponent likely won't know all of the things that you are trying to achieve in any combat anyway... but remember it works both ways for both sides.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Here is what you are missing, - you get to decide.

To quote your earlier post, you are still "play(ing) WITH another player". You have to decide - do I go for (achieve) this objective, do I hold onto this objective for later (which means - it's not changing btw), or do I instead focus on my opponent - by killing his key units, killing his warlord, denying him objectives etc...

Let me try and explain this as clearly as possible. If there are six objectives, laid out equally by the players, both sides deployed, and then the game starts where objectives are earned at the end of each turn, this is my opponent and myself playing against each other.
If there are six objectives, that I don't know what will matter and when (or if), and my opponent doesn't either then we aren't playing against each other, we are playing against each other and against the game.
I do not know what objectives I will draw, or what my opponent will draw. To go on the offensive or the defensive is based on what you're drawing, not based on your opponent.

Even the fastest (and luckiest) army in 40K will not be changing all of it's objectives every turn, and nobody has witnessed this happen yet either.

What do you mean? Some missions require only 3 objective cards. I've seen them all earned or discarded in a single turn multiple times. That means that what the plan was for turn 1 can be completely different by turn 2, and the player won't know until new cards are randomly drawn.

So again I ask - if you have just one objective to be achieved over 5+ game turns - what happens when you achieve it? (is that strategic or realistic?) To be fair, it could be depending on your narrative, but likely once you achieve an objective, you move on to the next one. Why does it make you a tactical wizard to plan once for that objective over 5+ turns, but not on several turns?

... I'm not sure what you're asking. If there are 6 objectives and you earn a point for each one you control at the end of the turn, every turn, then you have a lot of motivation to aggressively control/defend/deny objectives. If you're asking what makes this realistic/strategic is that the scenario could involve getting weapon caches, hostage based, gathering intel from terminal, or some thing along those lines. The point is the goal is clearly defined, but not the means to get to it.
What really makes it strategic is your opponent has the same plan in mind and is actively trying to counter you. To me this is better and more intense than cards randomly deciding if I should go on the offensive, defensive, and so on.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Here is what you are missing, - you get to decide.

To quote your earlier post, you are still "play(ing) WITH another player". You have to decide - do I go for (achieve) this objective, do I hold onto this objective for later (which means - it's not changing btw), or do I instead focus on my opponent - by killing his key units, killing his warlord, denying him objectives etc...

Let me try and explain this as clearly as possible. If there are six objectives, laid out equally by the players, both sides deployed, and then the game starts where objectives are earned at the end of each turn, this is my opponent and myself playing against each other.
If there are six objectives, that I don't know what will matter and when (or if), and my opponent doesn't either then we aren't playing against each other, we are playing against each other and against the game.
I do not know what objectives I will draw, or what my opponent will draw. To go on the offensive or the defensive is based on what you're drawing, not based on your opponent.

You are still playing the SAME game... you still play linebreaker, first blood, slay the warlord, and of course wipe out! ...but there are (possibly) other objectives you can CHOOSE to reach for, fight for, or ignore in lieu of other goals; and your opponent can do the same. It sounds to me like you want something a bit easier and not being able to plan out the entire battle at list-building is slightly more challenging.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

Even the fastest (and luckiest) army in 40K will not be changing all of it's objectives every turn, and nobody has witnessed this happen yet either.

What do you mean? Some missions require only 3 objective cards. I've seen them all earned or discarded in a single turn multiple times. That means that what the plan was for turn 1 can be completely different by turn 2, and the player won't know until new cards are randomly drawn.

Really you've seen an army get all (3) objectives every turn? ...Impressive, I'd love to see a batrep where that happens.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

So again I ask - if you have just one objective to be achieved over 5+ game turns - what happens when you achieve it? (is that strategic or realistic?) To be fair, it could be depending on your narrative, but likely once you achieve an objective, you move on to the next one. Why does it make you a tactical wizard to plan once for that objective over 5+ turns, but not on several turns?

... I'm not sure what you're asking. If there are 6 objectives and you earn a point for each one you control at the end of the turn, every turn, then you have a lot of motivation to aggressively control/defend/deny objectives. If you're asking what makes this realistic/strategic is that the scenario could involve getting weapon caches, hostage based, gathering intel from terminal, or some thing along those lines. The point is the goal is clearly defined, but not the means to get to it.
What really makes it strategic is your opponent has the same plan in mind and is actively trying to counter you. To me this is better and more intense than cards randomly deciding if I should go on the offensive, defensive, and so on.

Except when the objectives are hidden, which is not every mission, you are still "actively trying to counter" your opponent - or instead you are killing him, or trying to achieve another goal.

 Gunzhard wrote:

You are still playing the SAME game

NO we aren't. He draws Objective 2, 4, and cast psychic powers. I draw objective 1, kill a building, and issue a challenge. This is not based on either army dynamic or the mission in general. This is a random event and we are playing seperate objectives and goals. We are really playing two different games, with independent decks. Fighting over board space is SECONDARY to the deck.

It sounds to me like you want something a bit easier and not being able to plan out the entire battle at list-building is slightly more challenging.

Be careful with those straw men, they are fire hazards. I have not stated this once. I have stated that I want a game that isn't based on randomly changing what parts of the fields will be important. I want to play a game where my opponent knows exactly what his plan will be and I will be able to face him on equal terms and see who can out play the other. Does that at all sound like I only want the game to be about list building? Do you honestly think that making a straw man is better than actually addressing what I'm saying?

Really you've seen an army get all (3) objectives every turn? ...Impressive, I'd love to see a batrep where that happens.

The mission let you draw 3 each turn, earn 2 and discard another, 3 next turn and you have a chance to do the same. Some Warlord traits even help you cycle faster. There are easy ways to cycle through cards. Do you need a batrep to show you how to do this?

Even if every mission had the cards laid out right in front of you, it doesn't make it better to counter your opponent since he draws and scores on his turn. That means that I could risk a scoring unit to push forward to prevent him from holding Objective 2 and he won't draw it on his turn, nor I on mine. So I'd risk a unit on an objective that randomly won't matter. This isn't how a strategic game should be played. It shouldn't be based on objective whack-a-mole. It should be two players with clearly laid out plans and working against each other to see who can come out on top.

You were saying about strawmen? ...you assume that ever card you draw is achievable in the same turn or you just draw new ones. You assume a lot.

It should be two players with clearly laid out plans and working against each other to see who can come out on top.

This doesn't sound like war at all to me; and in any form of strategy game 'clearly laid out plans' seldom go uninterrupted by your opponent, unforeseen challenges, other (random) events, etc...

 Gunzhard wrote:
You were saying about strawmen? ...you assume that ever card you draw is achievable in the same turn or you just draw new ones. You assume a lot.

That's not a straw man... I said it can be easy to cycle through cards. I stated that when you're drawing random new cards you're changing your goals from the previous turn. Certainly not every turn, and not when drawing a bad starting hand that you will have to discard one at a time if they are impossible. My point is only that you set up and then randomly decide your plan of action through cards. Each card you draw randomly shapes your goals, not you and not your opponent.

This doesn't sound like war at all to me; and in any form of strategy game 'clearly laid out plans' seldom go uninterrupted by your opponent, unforeseen challenges, other (random) events, etc...

Right, which is what I'm in full support of. Reserves, outflanking, D6 based system, and a few other random traits are fine. But when neither you or your opponent have a clear plan of action, it stops being a game of two opponents competing against each other. What about this is hard to understand.

 Savageconvoy wrote:

This doesn't sound like war at all to me; and in any form of strategy game 'clearly laid out plans' seldom go uninterrupted by your opponent, unforeseen challenges, other (random) events, etc...

Right, which is what I'm in full support of. Reserves, outflanking, D6 based system, and a few other random traits are fine. But when neither you or your opponent have a clear plan of action, it stops being a game of two opponents competing against each other. What about this is hard to understand.

Weren't you the one throwing around 'shutes and ladders' as an insult? ...heh it sounds to me, like that is really what you are after. Perfectly laid out boundaries, both you and your opponent can freely create your 'clearly laid out plans of action' without any risk of unexpected (random) stuff, nothing will happen that will force you out of your box / comfort zone; just you and your perfectly planned for - enemy, and nothing else - just like real war right (MWHistorian?).

The arguments here have totally gone full circle into a spiral of madness... So it's totally unrealistic that an objective may change between '40K game turns' per military doctrine, but it's realistic (and somehow challenging?) that two forces would meet with perfectly laid out plans and nothing unexpected would happen? I guess I don't get it... for years (as long as 40k had an online community in fact) I've seen folks angrily pine over hypothetical doomsday scenarios that rarely ever come up - while the rest of us play the game and have fun. It's time for me to go paint some minis!

The last 3 pages are soo off topic it hurts.

Neither of you is going to convice the other to change what they believe.

Move along.

Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, strategy does not mean "win in the list building." Stop saying that. That's only a part of strategic playing. I'm going to have to put you on ignore from now on.